Letters to the Editor
-
Again, crappy writing used to make an unnecessary point.
Conason writes: No doubt the former mayor believes that he is "obviously" the best choice for president in reference to Giuliani's statement "I think obviously I would be the best at this."
One would think this is sloppiness, but it happens so often that it must be intentional. Giuliani -- whom, let the record show, I despise and think would be possibly the worst of a terrible lot running for the nomination -- was clearly modifying "I think" with the adverb "obviously".
Otherwise he would have said "I think I would obviously be the best at this." The placement of the "obviously", children, is the key to decoding the meaning of the sentence.
Yet, in order to score a completely unnecessary dig, Conason misuses the quotation to imply that he was saying something he wasn't.
My problem with this (in addition to it being sloppy journalism) is that it is just the sort of crap Hannity et al practice. Why twist what Giuliani has to say? He IS EVIL. HIS RECORD IS EVIL. WE DON'T HAVE TO TWIST ANYTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THIS FACT.
It is like when Bush I's people promulgated an erroneously literal translation of "mother of all wars" in order to demonize Sadaam as a tinpot dictator out of a bad hollywood movie. Or the way he used to drawl and emphasize the word "SCUUUUUD" whenever he said "scud missiles" as if even saying the word was disgusting. Again, what the fuck was the point? Sadaam didn't need to be spun as evil, he was evil.
C'mon Joe. Rise above these cheap tactics.